Discuss the trolley experiments Spur and Fat Man with specific reference to how the two have distinct differences within the Doctrine of Double Effect. Additionally, these two thought experiments shed light on each of our philosophers' approach to ethics - Aristotle, Kant and Mill.

In the "Spur", the choice is between killing five strangers or one loved one. You could pull a lever to redirect the train coming at the five men. You would still be killing the one man tied to sidetrack, but you would save the lives of those other five men.

In the "Fat Man", a runaway train is coming toward five men that are all tied down to the tracks. The train has to be stopped in order to save the lives of those five men. You are the onlooker of this scenario, and you are standing on top of a footbridge looking down at the train situation. There happens to be a fat man standing next to you, and he is a complete stranger. You have the option of pushing him off the bridge in order to save those five men, but you would end up killing the fat man. The philosophical question is whether or not you would kill the fat man in order to save those five lives. thexplanation:

The reason that this scenario is different morally is that you would physically have to push this fat man onto the tracks when he was not in the path of that oncoming train.

The whole concept of the trolley problem is based on the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE). This doctrine basically states that if you are doing something morally good, which has a morally bad side-effect, it is still ethically okay to go through with that morally good action.

In Spur you don't have to push anyone in the way of the train, you just redirect the train by using a lever. Fat Man scenario is seen as worse because he wasn't in the path of the train. You push him into the path of an oncoming train. Seen as morally worse.